SummaryDouble-lumen endobronchial tubes are the most common method of achieving lung isolation and one-lung ventilation during thoracic anaesthesia and surgery. We compared the clinical performance of the Macintosh laryngoscope and the GlideScope â during endobronchial intubation with a double-lumen tube. Seventy patients with no predictors for difficult laryngoscopy were allocated randomly to the Macintosh laryngoscope or GlideScope. There was no statistical difference in the rate of success at the first attempt (91% vs 83%, respectively). On a numerical rating scale (scored from 0 to 10), the 30 anaesthetists who took part in the study rated endobronchial intubation overall as easier using the Macintosh compared with the GlideScope, 2 (1-3 [0-8]) vs 3 (2-6 [0-10]), respectively, p = 0.003. Postoperative voice changes were also less common in the Macintosh group (8 (22%) vs 17 (58%), p = 0.045). Anaesthetists found the GlideScope more difficult to use than the Macintosh laryngoscope and endobronchial intubation took longer; therefore, we cannot recommend its routine use with double-lumen tubes in patients who are predicted to have a normal airway.

SummaryLaryngoscopy can induce stress responses that may be harmful in susceptible patients. We directly measured the force applied to the base of the tongue as a surrogate for the stress response. Force measurements were obtained using three FlexiForce Sensors Ò (Tekscan Inc, Boston, MA, USA) attached along the concave surface of each laryngoscope blade.Twenty-four 24 adult patients of ASA physical status 1-2 were studied. After induction of anaesthesia and neuromuscular blockade, laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation was performed using either a Macintosh or a GlideScope (93-207 [17-509]) Ns; p = 0.017) with the GlideScope. Our study shows that the peak lifting force on the base of the tongue during laryngoscopy is less with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Sugammadex is a selective binding agent for aminosteroid neuromuscular blockers whose use is increasing in anaesthetic practice. We present three cases of severe anaphylaxis coincident with sugammadex administration. Subsequent intradermal testing confirmed sugammadex as the triggering agent, with all patients having positive skin responses to a 1:100 dilution of the standard 100 mg/ml solution and two out of three having a positive response to a 1:1000 dilution. As all patients were administered sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium, we considered that sugammadex-rocuronium complexes were a potential unique allergen. In the two patients who were additionally tested with a rocuronium-sugammadex (3.6:1 molecular ratio) mixture, the wheal-and-flare response was significantly attenuated.

No abstract